Podcasts about partisanship

When we spoke recently with Dr. Sean Westwood, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College and the director of the Polarization Research Lab, we knew we wanted to share the conversation with you as quickly as possible, because it speaks so directly to the current moment. Dr. studies American politics and how partisan conflict manifests in the United States, its consequences and its origins.  Read the transcript of this episode
   Learn more about the researchSubscribe to Stories of Impact wherever you listen to podcasts
 Find us on Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and YouTube Share your comments, questions and suggestions at info@storiesofimpact.org    Supported by Templeton World Charity Foundation

In this episode, we welcome back political journalist and author Will Saletan. Will, formerly of Slate and now a writer for The Bulwark, is known for his sharp insights on American democracy, political corruption, and authoritarianism. Will reflects on the pivotal events leading up to and following the 2024 election, including Joe Biden's withdrawal, Kamala Harris's campaign, and Donald Trump's return to power. This thought-provoking conversation dives into the state of democracy, the rise of authoritarianism, and how ordinary Americans are responding. What You Will Learn How Will Saletan processed the chaotic political landscape leading up to the 2024 election. Why many Americans seem indifferent to threats against constitutional rights. Will's analysis of Trump's authoritarian tendencies and the implications for democracy. The emerging role of European allies as America's commitment to NATO and democracy weakens. Practical strategies for handling misinformation and toxic discourse on social media. Episode Highlights [00:01:00] Introduction to Will Saletan and a reflection on major events since their last conversation. [00:03:00] Will discusses his surprise at Biden's physical and verbal deterioration during the 2024 campaign. [00:07:00] The challenges Kamala Harris faced stepping into the race and why the "change election" dynamic mattered. [00:11:00] Corey and Will examine why many Americans rationalized or minimized January 6th. [00:23:00] Will explains how fear and profit motive lead companies and law firms to capitulate to authoritarian pressures. [00:29:00] How self-censorship and fear of government retribution are stifling free speech. [00:54:00] Will shares the "general idea" he's concluded about the Trump administration: incompetence and stupidity at historic levels. [01:03:00] Hope on the horizon: how European nations are stepping up to defend democratic values. [01:06:00] Final reflections on the resilience of democracy beyond America's current political struggles. Featured Quotes Will Saletan: "What clicks for me is very simple: they're idiots. They're really stupid, and they think they're smart." Will Saletan: "The danger isn't just the lies themselves—it's the machinery of intimidation that stops people from even trying to tell the truth." Corey Nathan: "It's encouraging when you realize people are so much more than the hat they might wear." Will Saletan: "Even though America has faltered, there's still goodness in the world—and it's stepping up." Resources Mentioned Will Saletan at The Bulwark Will's book: The Corruption of Lindsey Graham: A Case Study in The Rise of Authoritarianism Will on Bluesky - @saletan.bsky.social (Note: If Will referenced any other external resources or books you want linked specifically, just let me know!)

In this episode, we welcome back political journalist and author Will Saletan. Will, formerly of Slate and now a writer for The Bulwark, is known for his sharp insights on American democracy, political corruption, and authoritarianism. Will reflects on the pivotal events leading up to and following the 2024 election, including Joe Biden's withdrawal, Kamala Harris's campaign, and Donald Trump's return to power. This thought-provoking conversation dives into the state of democracy, the rise of authoritarianism, and how ordinary Americans are responding. What You Will Learn How Will Saletan processed the chaotic political landscape leading up to the 2024 election. Why many Americans seem indifferent to threats against constitutional rights. Will's analysis of Trump's authoritarian tendencies and the implications for democracy. The emerging role of European allies as America's commitment to NATO and democracy weakens. Practical strategies for handling misinformation and toxic discourse on social media. Episode Highlights [00:01:00] Introduction to Will Saletan and a reflection on major events since their last conversation. [00:03:00] Will discusses his surprise at Biden's physical and verbal deterioration during the 2024 campaign. [00:07:00] The challenges Kamala Harris faced stepping into the race and why the "change election" dynamic mattered. [00:11:00] Corey and Will examine why many Americans rationalized or minimized January 6th. [00:23:00] Will explains how fear and profit motive lead companies and law firms to capitulate to authoritarian pressures. [00:29:00] How self-censorship and fear of government retribution are stifling free speech. [00:54:00] Will shares the "general idea" he's concluded about the Trump administration: incompetence and stupidity at historic levels. [01:03:00] Hope on the horizon: how European nations are stepping up to defend democratic values. [01:06:00] Final reflections on the resilience of democracy beyond America's current political struggles. Featured Quotes Will Saletan: "What clicks for me is very simple: they're idiots. They're really stupid, and they think they're smart." Will Saletan: "The danger isn't just the lies themselves—it's the machinery of intimidation that stops people from even trying to tell the truth." Corey Nathan: "It's encouraging when you realize people are so much more than the hat they might wear." Will Saletan: "Even though America has faltered, there's still goodness in the world—and it's stepping up." Resources Mentioned Will Saletan at The Bulwark Will's book: The Corruption of Lindsey Graham: A Case Study in The Rise of Authoritarianism Will on Bluesky - @saletan.bsky.social (Note: If Will referenced any other external resources or books you want linked specifically, just let me know!)

Billy Binion on X: "My reaction to stuff like this is two-fold. 1) I have enough confidence in the courts & our system of governance that this would fail spectacularly. 2) If a Democrat were musing about securing a 3rd term, Republicans would be blind with rage. Partisanship is a cancer." Baseball’s Greatest Moments on X: ""Don't be like me. God gave me a body, ability to play baseball...it was just wasted. I was given so much." Absolutely heartbreaking to hear Mickey Mantle talk about himself like this https://t.co/aQJTbMYUql" I'm spending my kids' inheritance to teach them the value of money Are We Hardwired for Happiness?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The post The Myth of Judicial Non-partisanship appeared first on Montana Family Foundation.

Former Republican U.S. congressman Bob Inglis offers a conservative perspective on climate solutions in discussion with Penn climatologist Michael Mann. --- Politically conservative and concerned about climate change? In this special episode of the Energy Policy Now podcast, Penn climatologist Michael Mann talks with Bob Inglis, former Republican Congressman from South Carolina and current executive director of RepublicEN.org, about bridging the partisan climate divide. In a wide-ranging conversation recorded live during Energy Week at Penn 2025 at the University of Pennsylvania, Mann and Inglis discuss a conservative view on climate change, how conservative messaging on climate has evolved over time, and how common solutions might be found in an era of partisan climate divide. Inglis also offers his view on carbon pricing and strategies to reign in carbon emissions in the U.S. The conversation is moderated by Sanya Carley, faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Bob Inglis is a former U.S. representative for South Carolina’s 4th congressional district. He is the executive director of RepublicanEn.org at George Mason University. Michael Mann is director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania. Sanya Carley is the Mark Alan Hughes faculty director of the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy. Important note on the conversation: Due to a technical problem, the first two minutes of Bob Inglis’ conversation are difficult to hear (from 5:40 to 7:40). We’ve transcribed those two minutes in the show notes, below, to make it easier to follow along. A full transcript of this and all Energy Policy Now podcasts is available on the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy website. Bob Inglis (5:40): Yeah, so for my first six years in Congress I said that climate change is nonsense. All I knew was that Al Gore was for it. And as much as I represented Greenville-Spartanburg South Carolina, that was the end of the inquiry. Okay, pretty ignorant. But that’s the way it was my first six years. Out of Congress six years, as you just heard, doing commercial real estate law again and then, had the opportunity to run for the same seat again before, our son had just turned 18, so he was voting for the first time, and he came to me and he said, dad, I’ll vote for you. But you’re going to clean up your act on the environment. His four sisters agreed, his mother agreed. New constituency, you know. So you got to respond to those people who can change the locks on the doors to your house, you know. So, very important to respond to these people. And so that was step one of a three step metamorphosis. Step two was going to Antarctica with the [House of Representatives] Science Committee and seeing the evidence in the iceberg drillings. Step three was another Science Committee trip and, um, really a spiritual awakening which seems improbable, right, on a godless Science Committee trip, because we all know that all scientists are godless. Right? Well, apparently not. Because this Aussie climate scientist was showing me the glories of the Great Barrier Reef. I could see he was worshipping God in what he was showing me. You know, St. Francis of Assisi supposedly said “preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words.” So Scott Heron, this Aussie climate scientist who’s now become a very dear friend was doing that. I could see it in his eyes, it was written all over his face. It was in his excitement about what he was showing me. He was clearly worshipping God. So I knew we shared a world view. Forty words were spoken. Related Content How Identity Politics Shape U.S. Energy Policy https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/commentary/podcast/how-identity-politics-shape-u-s-energy-policy/ Climate Action in the Age of Great Power Rivalry: What Geopolitics Means for Climate https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-action-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry-what-geopolitics-means-for-the-climate/ Energy Policy Now is produced by The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. For all things energy policy, visit kleinmanenergy.upenn.eduSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jonathan Rauch, author of Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy, and Julian Zelizer, author of In Defense of Partisanship, join for a wide-ranging discussion on their new books and the rise of partisanship in America. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Julian E. Zelizer, In Defense of Partisanship (2025) Jonathan Rauch, Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (2025) Julian E. Zelizer, Abraham Joshua Heschel: A Life of Radical Amazement (2021) Jonathan Rauch, “Christian Renewal and the Future of American Democracy,” Brigham Young University Wheatley Institute (Jan. 24, 2025) Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Republican Rep. Mark Harris of North Carolina joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to break down why and how congressional Republicans plan to end lawfare and the weaponization of the federal government. If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code FEDERALIST at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: http://incogni.com/federalist

Jonathan Rauch, author of Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy, and Julian Zelizer, author of In Defense of Partisanship, join Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion on their new books and the rise of partisanship in America.  This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series on March 3, 2025.  Resources Julian E. Zelizer, In Defense of Partisanship (2025)  Jonathan Rauch, Cross Purposes: Christianity's Broken Bargain with Democracy (2025)  Julian E. Zelizer, Abraham Joshua Heschel: A Life of Radical Amazement (2021)  Jonathan Rauch, “Christian Renewal and the Future of American Democracy,” Brigham Young University Wheatley Institute (Jan. 24, 2025)  Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024)    Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 17:03)Politics, Partisanship, and Performance Art in a Social Media Age: President Trump's Historic Joint Address to CongressFull Transcript of President Trump's Speech to Congress by The New York TimesPart II (17:03 - 23:18)Neon Tape, a Padlock, and a Little Library: 4 College Students in California Turn a A Little Library into Performance Art over Book Bans – Book Bans That Don't Even ExistChapman students lock up some Little Free Libraries as segue to larger discussion on censorship and diversity by Daily Pilot (Eric Licas)Part III (23:18 - 26:57)Big News from the Moon: Private Firm Firefly's Blue Ghost Lander Successfully Reaches Lunar SurfacePrivate lunar lander Blue Ghost aces moon touchdown with a special delivery for NASA by The LA Times (Marcia Dunn)Sign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

“We're ceding ground to China, which has become everyone's favorite punching bag. Whether Democrat or Republican, both sides are beating up on China. Meanwhile, China is saying, ‘Okay, we'll make all your solar panels, electric and autonomous vehicles,' because they see the financial opportunities. It's past time for the U.S. and our politicians to step out of their corners and come together – this is the greatest crisis we will ever face.” Chelsea Henderson on Electric Ladies Podcast Political polarization may have stifled discussions on the climate, but Mother Nature doesn't ask what party you're in before wiping out your community with a hurricane, tornado or wildfire. In addition, 80% of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) funding has gone to Republican districts – which also happen to have some of the highest potential for economic development through clean energy. At least 18 House Republicans even urged Speaker Mike Johnson not to cut clean energy tax credits in their districts because of the economic growth spurred by these investments. What does the conservative answer to climate change look like? Listen to Chelsea Henderson, Director of Editorial Content at RepublicEn, a non-profit organization that provides a safe space for conservatives to have open discussions about climate change and related solutions. She also has extensive experience on Capitol Hill working for Republican senators, as well as the National Wildlife Federation and The Nature Conservancy, and wrote the extraordinary best-selling book “Glacial: The inside story of climate politics.”  You'll hear about: Bridging the partisan divide on climate policy. The economic opportunities and benefits of investing in clean energy and climate resilience in Republican-led states. The longstanding history of GOP presidents and candidates who have championed climate action – and the need for courageous lawmakers who do so today. How climate-related disasters and personal experiences spur engagement on climate issues, regardless of political affiliation. The role of effective messaging and messengers in engaging the conservative community on climate change. Plus, valuable career advice, especially for considering a career pivot. "Playing into your interests and strengths is important. It's become a bit of a cliché to say, ‘Do what you love, and everything will fall into place,' because it's not that easy. I try not to say no to opportunities. Instead, I try to say yes more and engage with other women, because women are incredible at supporting one another. Leaning into that support system – hearing about the pitfalls, the challenges, what was hard, what was easy – is invaluable. “For me, writing Glacial was a turning point. I've always loved writing, and that's how I transitioned from being a lobbyist to more of a messenger. I thought, ‘I know a lot about climate change, and I'm a good writer. How can I build a career around that?' That mindset helped shape my path.” Chelsea Henderson on Electric Ladies Podcast Read Joan's Forbes articles here. You'll also like: Dr. Stephanie Hare, researcher, broadcaster and author, on harnessing AI for climate action. Jennifer Hough, on connecting through curiosity to build bridges across the divide and find constructive solutions. Daniella Ortega, Director of “Carbon: An Unauthorized Biography”, on how to communicate climate messages in stories. Jill Tidman from The Redford Center on how we can talk about the climate while ensuring a balanced narrative. Michelle Wyman, the National Council for Science and the Environment, about how to talk about science with lawmakers. (recorded under Green Connections Radio) Erin McLaughlin, Senior Economist, The Conference Board, about her new report on buildings, climate change and carbon emissions. More from Electric Ladies Podcast! Join us at The Earth Day Women's Summit on April 22, 2025, in Dallas, Texas! Register today with the code “EDWS” for a special rate.  Elevate your career with expert coaching and ESG advisory with Electric Ladies Podcast. Unlock new opportunities, gain confidence, and achieve your career goals with the right guidance. Want to hear more from us? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive our podcasts, blog, events and special coaching offers. Thanks for subscribing on Apple Podcasts or iHeartRadio and leaving us a review! Follow us on Twitter @joanmichelson

One month into Trump's second term and his actions, thus far, have been described as chaotic, anarchic, cruel, mercurial, authoritarianian, etc. At minimum, it's clear that Trump is single-mindedly focused on systematically dismantling the very institutions designed to uphold democracy. Our guest this week, Dr. Russell Muirhead, professor of Democracy and Politics at Dartmouth, and co-author of "Ungoverning: The Attack on the Administrative State and the Politics of Chaos" has a word for this to help us understand this concept - this experience. We discuss this disruptive strategy, tracing its dangerous evolution and impact on American democracy, especially during the Trump administration. From the philosophical seeds planted by Reagan to today's political climate, we examine how this shift from small government to outright chaos threatens to erode the societal bonds that hold democracy together.We also examine how ungoverning permeates state politics and even the judiciary. Through the volatile role of the Supreme Court and state resistance, we discuss the increasing polarization and fragmentation of political alliances. Considerations on single-party states illustrate how these political strongholds potentially serve as bastions of resistance or exacerbation of national divides. In this context, Dr. Muirhead provides a critical lens on the intricate relationship between political loyalty and governance – a crucial factor in understanding the current state of American politics.Finally, we talk about the human element of this political upheaval, the shifting attitudes of the American electorate, and the crucial role of public engagement in safeguarding democracy. -------------------------Follow Deep Dive:BlueskyYouTube Email: deepdivewithshawn@gmail.com Music: Majestic Earth - Joystock

In this episode, host Corey Nathan takes on one of the biggest challenges in today's society: toxic partisanship. He explores how political and social divisions have deepened, fueled by media, social networks, and entrenched ideological battles. But rather than just diagnosing the problem, Corey offers a powerful antidote—getting local and engaging in real-life, face-to-face conversations. He draws inspiration from scholars like Jonathan Haidt, Katherine Stewart and Robert Putnam, as well as his personal experiences, to make a compelling case for community-based solutions to polarization. What We Discuss ✅ The real extent of political division in America—and why it's not as bad as it seems ✅ How social media and national narratives exaggerate our differences ✅ The philosophy of Carl Schmitt and its impact on modern political discourse ✅ Why local engagement—like city council meetings, PTAs, and even bar conversations—is the key to bridging divides ✅ Practical steps to foster meaningful discussions and rebuild relationships Episode Highlights ⏳ [00:02:00] – The growing problem of toxic partisanship and how social media makes it worse ⏳ [00:05:00] – A study from More in Common shows Americans want unity, but doubt the other side does ⏳ [00:09:00] – Corey shares personal examples of online political attacks and how they reflect broader polarization ⏳ [00:14:00] – A key solution: Local engagement and organizations like Village Square ⏳ [00:17:00] – How shared community goals, like better roads and schools, help bridge ideological divides ⏳ [00:20:00] – The inspiring story of Joe Walsh and Fred Guttenberg: Two ideological opposites who became close friends ⏳ [00:23:00] – The challenge of engaging with people who seem beyond reach—and knowing when to step away ⏳ [00:26:00] – A call to action: Take the first step, invite someone for coffee, and start humanizing one another Featured Quotes

When we think of weak democracies around the world, we often think of their inability to maintain a monopoly on violence because of challenges outside the state – like militias, rebel groups, criminal gangs, and other external, violent organizations. But sometimes it's actors deeply intertwined with the state – like political parties – who are engaging in the violence. Sometimes, the call is coming from inside the house.Our guest today, Niloufer Siddiqui, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany - State University of New York, shares with us insights from her award-winning book Under the Gun: Political Parties and Violence in Pakistan. Exploiting subnational variation within the country, Niloufer asks why Pakistani political parties use violence to achieve their goals in some political contexts but not in others. And when they do strategically decide to use violence, when do they take care of things “in house,” having party cadres carry out violent actions and when do they outsource their “dirty work” to other groups, like gangs and militias?Examining the behavior of several political parties across multiple provinces, Niloufer explains how electoral and economic incentives, the structure of ethnic cleavages, and organizational strength factor into parties' decisions about whether to use violence – and, if so, whether to outsource it or do it themselves. We talk with Niloufer about how she gets at these dynamics by triangulating among survey experiments conducted with voters and elected politicians; about 150 interviews with party officials, journalists, civil society, and police and intelligence officers; and focus groups with party members and voters. Niloufer also tells us how, in doing this work, her own identity as a Muhajir woman gave her special access to one of the major parties she writes about, the MQM party, particularly the female members of the party. Lastly, we take a step back and talk with Niloufer about the ethical implications of her study. We ask her whether, in a fragile democracy like Pakistan, there's some risk in exposing and calling attention to the violent nature of political parties. Might doing so serve to undermine public confidence in the democratic project? Could one unintended consequence of research on democracy's shortcomings be to give actors like the military a convenient excuse to sweep in and push elected politicians aside? Works cited in this episodeBrass, Paul R. The production of Hindu-Muslim violence in contemporary India. University of Washington Press, 2011.Brubaker, Rogers, and David D. Laitin. “Ethnic and Nationalist Violence.” Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 423-452Graham, Matthew H., and Milan W. Svolik. "Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States." American Political Science Review 114, no. 2 (2020): 392-409.Kalyvas, Stathis N. "The ontology of “political violence”: action and identity in civil wars." Perspectives on politics 1, no. 3 (2003): 475-494.Milan W. Svolik (2020), "When Polarization Trumps Civic Virtue: Partisan Conflict and the Subversion of Democracy by Incumbents", Quarterly Journal of Political Science: Vol. 15: No. 1, pp 3-31Wilkinson, Steven. Votes and violence: Electoral competition and ethnic riots in India. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Julian Zelizer, a Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University discusses his new book, "In Defense of Partisanship".

Julian Zelizer, a Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University discusses his new book, "In Defense of Partisanship."

We totally thought Richard Hanania was a Jew, and by the time we found out he's Palestinian (gasp!) it was too late to cancel. Just kidding, we loved talking to Richard about everything from the online right-wing “trollosphere”, antisemitism (which he gets his fair share of), Twitter politics, elite human capital, disappearing pronoun bios, and in general why everything is just more stupid now.Follow Richard on X/Twitter , check out the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, and subscrie to his Substack here. Get full access to Good for the Jews at askajew.substack.com/subscribe

On a recent WhoWhatWhy podcast, I spoke with Princeton historian Julian Zelizer who offers a provocative argument from his new book In Defense of Partisanship. At a time when nearly a third of Americans view both major parties with disgust and many blame partisan loyalty for our democratic decay, Zelizer says that strong, disciplined political parties — not feel-good Biden-style bipartisanship — have historically been crucial to America's greatest achievements. The problem isn't that parties fight hard for their beliefs; it's that we've lost the guardrails that once transformed partisan combat into incremental but lasting progress.  

In the new order, Trump cited the Los Angeles fires, even though the actions he is ordering, delivering more water from the federal Central Valley Project would primarily serve farms.  Some presidents turn to think tanks to staff their administrations. Others turn to alumni of previous White Houses. Donald Trump has turned to Fox News to fill the ranks of his Cabinet.

Partisanship. What is it good for? Most people these days would say, “Absolutely nothing.” Julian Zelizer might reply, “Not so fast.” This week on the Road to Now we welcome backt to the show the Malcom Stevenson Forbes Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, and CNN Political Analyst, Julian Zelizer to discuss his new book, In Defense of Partisanship. Zelizer argues that partisanship is not inherently detrimental to democracy. Instead, he contends that a healthy and vibrant political system requires robust and principled parties that clearly articulate their policy positions and engage in spirited debate. Through historical examples and contemporary analysis, Zelizer illustrates how partisanship has historically facilitated significant political and social advancements. Zelizer posits that today we are dealing with the negative effects of hyper partisanship, and that rather than seeking to eliminate partisanship altogether, efforts should be made to foster a political environment where constructive partisanship thrives. This episode was edited by Gary Fletcher.

Three of our favorite segments from the week, in case you missed them.100 Years of 100 Things: Partisanship & Inaugural Addresses (First) | 100 Years of 100 Things: The Great Gatsby (Starts at 42:23) | Dry January Amid a New Cancer Risk Report (Starts at 1:22:50)If you don't subscribe to the Brian Lehrer Show on iTunes, you can do that here. 

Partisanship is often portrayed as a societal ill—usually by those jerks in the other party. But as Julian Zelizer, Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, argues: partisanship can be beneficial. In fact, things become rather inefficient without it. Meanwhile, the Hamas-Israel hostage deal remains on the precipice of implementation, and Joe Biden issues a warning about oligarchs. He likely has one specific billionaire in mind, though there is significant political diversity even among the hundred-billionaire class. GIST Coupon Codes ... Harry's: harrys.com/gist for a $13 trial set for just $3 Prolon Life: prolonlife.com/gist for 15% off Produced by Joel Patterson and Corey Wara Email us at thegist@mikepesca.com To advertise on the show, visit: https://advertisecast.com/TheGist Subscribe to The Gist: https://subscribe.mikepesca.com/ Subscribe to The Gist Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4_bh0wHgk2YfpKf4rg40_g Follow Mikes Substack at: Pesca Profundities | Mike Pesca | Substack Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Acclaimed historian Julien Zelizer offers a deep examination of the role of partisanship in American Democracy in his new book “In Defense of Partisanship.”

The post The Myth Of Judicial Non-Partisanship appeared first on Montana Family Foundation.

After Jack Smith released his final report on Donald Trump's insurrection, Trump erupted, gloating over the failure to prosecute him. Meanwhile, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, MAGA hero Pete Hegseth, had some alarming moments at his confirmation hearing, and the MAGA cheerleading for him hints at ugly times ahead. Take this all together and Trump and MAGA look invincible right now. So we talked to historian Julian Zelizer, author of a good piece in The New Republic that reminds us that George W. Bush looked formidable in 2004, only to see the tide turn dramatically two years later. Zelizer discusses his new book, In Defense of Partisanship, and explains why Trump-MAGA's grip on power may prove fragile, especially if Democrats fight them effectively. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Continuing our centennial series, Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, CNN political analyst, NPR contributor, and author of several books, including his latest, In Defense of Partisanship (Columbia Global Reports, 2025), walks us through some key presidential inauguration speeches from the last 100 years and talks about the effect of political parties on American political life and the opportunities to enact changes.=> Prof. Zelizer will speak with Margaret Hoover on January 22nd at New York Historical. (ticketed event)

Political pundits frequently express concerns about the intense partisanship in our political culture. But could our divisions be productive and useful?On Today's Show:Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, CNN political analyst, NPR contributor, and author of several books, including his latest, In Defense of Partisanship (Columbia Global Reports, 2025), shares his analysis of politics today, and shares some key presidential inauguration speeches from the last 100 years.

After Jack Smith released his final report on Donald Trump's insurrection, Trump erupted, gloating over the failure to prosecute him. Meanwhile, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, MAGA hero Pete Hegseth, had some alarming moments at his confirmation hearing, and the MAGA cheerleading for him hints at ugly times ahead. Take this all together and Trump and MAGA look invincible right now. So we talked to historian Julian Zelizer, author of a good piece in The New Republic that reminds us that George W. Bush looked formidable in 2004, only to see the tide turn dramatically two years later. Zelizer discusses his new book, In Defense of Partisanship, and explains why Trump-MAGA's grip on power may prove fragile, especially if Democrats fight them effectively. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After Jack Smith released his final report on Donald Trump's insurrection, Trump erupted, gloating over the failure to prosecute him. Meanwhile, Trump's pick for Defense Secretary, MAGA hero Pete Hegseth, had some alarming moments at his confirmation hearing, and the MAGA cheerleading for him hints at ugly times ahead. Take this all together and Trump and MAGA look invincible right now. So we talked to historian Julian Zelizer, author of a good piece in The New Republic that reminds us that George W. Bush looked formidable in 2004, only to see the tide turn dramatically two years later. Zelizer discusses his new book, In Defense of Partisanship, and explains why Trump-MAGA's grip on power may prove fragile, especially if Democrats fight them effectively. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Joining Commissioner McDonald and Executive Deputy Commissioner Morne is Brown University's School for Public Health Dean Dr. Ashish Jha.  They discuss Dr. Jah's strategies to "departisanize" public health and reach out to communities that feel disaffected, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse perspectives in addressing current and future public health challenges.Hear Dr. Jha's personal story, from his initial aspirations to become a journalist to his transition into medicine and his influential role at the federal level assisting the Biden administration as White House COVID-19 response coordinator and most recently as the Dean of Brown University's School of Public Health.Dr. Jha shares his innovative approaches to public health education, including his focus on diversifying the student body, not just along racial lines, but also socio-economic and political, and his focus on integrating new voices and perspectives while preparing students for the evolving challenges and media landscape facing the next generation public health workforce.If you have an idea for topics we should discuss, please let us know: PublicHealthNowPodcast@health.ny.gov

This week we bring you a special episode from Dashiell Quinn, one of our 2024 Podcast Fellows.In this inaugural episode of 'Democracy on Fire,' host Dashiell Quinn discusses the vulnerabilities and challenges facing democracy with special guest Mr. Hauser, an experienced lawyer and former federal prosecutor. The conversation dives into key issues such as political polarization, media manipulation, misinformation, and the integrity of politicians. Through insightful dialogue, they explore the current state of democracy, the historical context of political division, and potential paths forward. This episode underscores the importance of understanding our founding principles and emphasizes the need for a more informed and engaged public. 00:00 Introduction to Democracy on Fire 00:58 Understanding Democracy's Fragility 01:21 Meet Our Special Guest: Mr. Hauser 01:46 Mr. Hauser's Background and Experience 03:33 Discussing Polarization and Partisanship 09:06 Media Manipulation and Misinformation 13:49 The Issue of Lying Politicians 18:01 Maintaining Integrity and Honor in Democracy 23:03 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsKnow a student interested in democracy and podcasts? Send them over to our fellowship to apply: https://www.democracygroup.org/fellowship 

Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News and author of several books including The Squad: AOC and the Hope of a Political Revolution (Henry Holt and Co., 2023), and Emily Jashinsky, DC correspondent for UnHerd, co-hosts  of the YouTube podcast "Counter Points," talk about the presidential transition and the national political news of the day.

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez's work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez's research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I'm delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers's book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg's War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez's work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez's research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I'm delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers's book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg's War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez's work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez's research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I'm delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers's book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg's War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez's work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez's research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I'm delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers's book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg's War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

The balance of power between the United States Congress and the president is particularly contested when it comes to war powers. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but Article II Section 2 declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Today, presidents broadly define their constitutional authority as commander in chief. But in the nineteenth century, Congress claimed and defended expansive war powers authority. How did Congress define the boundaries between presidential and congressional war powers in the early republic? Did the definition of “commander in chief” change, and if so, when, how, and why did it do so? Based on an original, comprehensive dataset of every congressional reference to the commander-in-chief clause from the ratification of the Constitution through 1917, Dr. Casey B.K. Dominguez analyzes the authority that members of Congress ascribed to the president as commander in chief and the boundaries they put around that authority. In Commander in Chief: Partisanship, Nationalism, and the Reconstruction of Congressional War Powers (University Press of Kansas, 2024) Dominguez shows that for more than a century members of Congress defined the commander in chief's authority narrowly, similar to that of any high-ranking military officer. But in a wave of nationalism during the Spanish-American War, members of Congress began to argue that Congress owed deference to the commander in chief – as a national representative of the military, nation, and flag rather than a military officer. These debates were partisan with members of Congress arguing for broader presidential war powers when the president was from their own party. Scholars often assume that it is the Supreme Court that interprets the Constitution but Dominguez's work shows how all the branches interpret the constitution. She offers particularly keen insights on the use of constitutional stories or scripts about the commander in chief clause. While scholars have assumed that the expansion of presidential war powers happened in the middle of the 20th century, Dominguez's research shows that the dynamical expansion began 50 years earlier. Her work helps readers understand when – and how – the United States shifted many military decisions to the president. Dr. Casey B. K. Dominguez is professor of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. Her research focuses on the relationships between political parties and interest groups, and on the evolution of Constitutional war powers in the United States. I'm delighted to welcome her to New Books in Political Science. Mentioned: Victoria A. Farrar-Myers's book on constitutional scripts, Scripted for Change The Institutionalization of the American Presidency (Texas A&M Press, 2007) Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) Mariah Zeisberg's War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority (Princeton 2013) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Jon Bonné is an erudite observer of food and culture trends and the author of many books, including the monumental, two-volume The New French Wine. In this episode, we talk about what Jon's been eating, drinking, and writing about in the world of restaurants, wine, and food culture. We discuss the many perceptions of the “wine bar,” and we dive into some of Jon's restaurant reporting at Resy, where he serves as managing editor. Also on the show we hear from Leila Heller talking about her new book, Persian Feasts: Recipes & Stories from a Family Table.Do you enjoy This Is TASTE? Drop us a review on Apple, or star us on Spotify. We'd love to hear from you. More From Jon Bonné:This Is TASTE 213: Jon Bonné [TASTE]10 Changes That Defined the Last Decade of Dining in America [Resy]Is Oregon Wine's True Soulmate the Loire Valley? [PUNCH]A Good NA Martini Is Possible [TASTE]See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's 20-min top headline news brief includes: [2:03] - Rep. Mark Alford: It's time to impeach Joe Biden. [American Agenda] [5:30] - Greg Kelly: Joe Biden has lied since day one. [Greg Kelly Reports] [12:38] - A father's message to Joe Biden following the pardon of Hunter. [Finnerty] [20:27] - Sebastian Gorka on Kash Patel: There is nobody better qualified. [Newsline] Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  • Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  • X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter • Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG • YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV • Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV • TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX  • GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax • Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  • Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax      • BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com • Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Simon Birmingham joins the podcast to talk about the highs and lows of his time in politics and the Liberal Party, as well as to share his biggest regret and a couple of anecdotes.  

Richard Hanania is an American political scientist and commentator, known for his right-wing perspectives and as president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology. He faced controversy in 2023 when his past writings under a pseudonym advocating white nationalism resurfaced, which he has since disavowed. His book, The Origins of Woke, critiques identity politics and has sparked both praise and criticism. In this conversation, Richard shares his journey from academia to becoming a public commentator, discussing his views on nervousness, political identity, and the complexities of group differences. He reflects on his libertarian beliefs, the challenges of academia, and the role of media in shaping public perception. The dialogue explores the nuances of political views and the importance of individual liberty, while also addressing the market dynamics of controversial topics. In this conversation, Richard discusses his experiences with media, his views on political engagement, and the current state of American politics. He expresses concerns about the Republican Party's direction and reflects on the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing the need for a realistic approach to peace in the region. Richard also shares insights on the implications of Trump's policies and the future of Middle Eastern relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Banker with a Beer Jerry Kuehl sits down with John Frank, Political Analyst for WEAU. Topics discussed include: Were the results of the recent elections a surprise? Pre-election polling Voting by economic class Partisanship of national media Impact of WI redistricting Beverage Enjoyed:  La Croix sparkling water Thank you for listening to this episode! Help support the show by leaving Banker with a Beer a rating or review on Apple or Spotify.  Banker with a Beer is brought to you by Northwestern Bank. A community bank headquartered in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Follow us on Facebook or learn more on our website northwesternbank.com. We're a community bank with all the services of a big bank in a personalized friendly size. Member FDIC.

The leader of the government in the House of Commons is one of the most important jobs in parliament. It's tricky work, especially in a minority parliament such as the one the Trudeau Liberals govern with at the moment. That's been made tougher due to a procedural stalemate. The post is held by the Liberal member for Burlington, Karina Gould, and she joins Steve Paikin to talk about her role and the government's plans in the coming months.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Hanania is the President of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology. His substack is: @richardhanania Support the show and get 10 free HelloFresh meals at https://www.hellofresh.com/FREECELLAR

Frank Schaeffer In Conversation with New York Times Washington Correspondent and Wilson Center Public Policy Fellow, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, exploring the themes of her work._____LINKShttps://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/sheryl-gay-stolberghttps://www.nytimes.com/by/sheryl-gay-stolberghttps://www.lovechildrenplanet.com/events/in-conversation-with-frank-schaeffer-sheryl-gay-stolberg_____I have had the pleasure of talking to some of the leading authors, artists, activists, and change-makers of our time on this podcast, and I want to personally thank you for subscribing, listening, and sharing 100-plus episodes over 100,000 times.Please subscribe to this Podcast, In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer, on your favorite platform, and to my Substack, It Has to Be Said.Thanks! Every subscription helps create, build, sustain and put voice to this movement for truth.Subscribe to It Has to Be Said. Face Your EarsExplore home recording and music creation with Rich and Justin on 'Face Your Ears'!Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the show_____In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer is a production of the George Bailey Morality in Public Life Fellowship. It is hosted by Frank Schaeffer, author of Fall In Love, Have Children, Stay Put, Save the Planet, Be Happy. Learn more at https://www.lovechildrenplanet.comFollow Frank on Substack, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, and YouTube. https://frankschaeffer.substack.comhttps://www.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16https://twitter.com/Frank_Schaefferhttps://www.instagram.com/frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.threads.net/@frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.tiktok.com/@frank_schaefferhttps://www.youtube.com/c/FrankSchaefferYouTube In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer Podcast

Today on Impact Theory, host Tom Bilyeu sits down with returning guest Dave Rubin for a deep-dive into the complex dynamics of modern American politics. In this compelling episode, we tackle a range of critical issues—from the impact of government programs on generational poverty, to the significance of active parenting in child development, and the promising yet controversial role of AI in supporting future parents. Dave shares his views on nutrition, emphasizing the importance of affordable healthy eating habits for children, while critiquing sugar-laden products from even health-oriented brands like Whole Foods. The discussion navigates through political landscapes, focusing on the traditional values Rubin believes are crucial for the country's future and dissecting the divisive rhetoric surrounding Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. We also explore Rubin's tech venture, Rubinreport locals.com, and delve into his perspectives on national debt, educational reform, and the ever-evolving political affiliations he experiences. Tom and Dave also consider the merits and potential drawbacks of figures like Elon Musk and RFK in government roles, while examining contentious topics such as DEI and the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. SHOWNOTES 00:00 Advocates for equal rights, blind justice, election chaos. 05:03 States decide laws, federal government protects basics. 11:09 Kamala's policies expand government, criticize spending. 18:53 Boomers cling to power; Gen X hesitates. 23:19 80s success, American pride, nostalgia, Trump's influence. 27:38 Supported Gary Johnson, cautious about Trump's presidency. 35:48 Kamala's impact could trigger second migration wave. 40:10 Democrats facing challenges due to shifting coalitions. 46:01 The Right accepts differences, unlike progressives. 51:24 Partisanship increased; one party seen dangerous. 54:00 JD Vance discusses election integrity, Big Tech influence. 59:10 Elon Musk motivated by free speech, controversy. 01:03:42 Critique of governance style and redistribution policies. 01:11:49 Mark Cuban criticizes Trump's narcissistic leadership style. 01:15:06 NBA owner guilt over racial dynamics. 01:20:02 Parenting and welfare policies affect future systems. 01:25:30 Cultural variety, unified freedom, vote decisively now. CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS Range Rover: Explore the Range Rover Sport at  https://landroverUSA.com Huel: Try Huel with 15% OFF today using code IMPACT at https://huel.com/impact. Netsuite: Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning for free at https://netsuite.com/theory Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at https://shopify.com/impact Design.com: Ready to transform your brand? Head to https://design.com/impacttheory and get up to 88% off. Betterhelp: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/impacttheory and get 10% off your first month. FOLLOW TOM: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en Twitter: https://twitter.com/tombilyeu YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here. If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast, Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. LISTEN AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/impacttheory Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we sit down with renowned cultural psychologist Michael Morris to discuss his new book, Tribal, in which he makes the case for seeing humans as an "us" species, not a "them" species. Morris says that since we genetically predisposed to collaborate, coordinate, and cooperate. He believes we can leverage our innate desire to work together to solve problems and reach goals to improve our lives, our relationships, and our jobs – and while we are at it, save the world. TribalNotre Dame ResearchersOverimitation StudyCSIConForecasting the Future TournamentInsurrection EpisodeAntivaxxer EpisodeAntimasking EpisodePartisanship EpisodeUncivil Agreement EpisodeTribal Psychology EpisodeKittedHow Minds ChangeDavid McRaney's TwitterYANSS TwitterShow NotesNewsletterPatreon

Educators and economists tell us all the reasons college enrollment has been dropping, especially for men, and how to stop the bleeding. (Part 3 of our series from 2022, “Freakonomics Radio Goes Back to School.”) SOURCES:Zachary Bleemer, assistant professor of economics at Princeton University and faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research.D'Wayne Edwards, founder and President of Pensole Lewis College.Catharine Hill, former president of Vassar College; trustee at Yale University; and managing director at Ithaka S+R.Pano Kanelos, founding president of the University of Austin.Amalia Miller, professor of economics at the University of Virginia.Donald Ruff, president and C.E.O. of the Eagle Academy Foundation.Morton Schapiro, professor of economics and former president of Northwestern University.Ruth Simmons, former president of Smith College, Brown University, and Prairie View A&M University.Miguel Urquiola, professor of economics at Columbia University. RESOURCES:"What Gay Men's Stunning Success Might Teach Us About the Academic Gender Gap," by Joel Mittleman (The Washington Post, 2022)."We Can't Wait for Universities to Fix Themselves. So We're Starting a New One," by Pano Kanelos (Common Sense, 2021)."Academic Freedom in Crisis: Punishment, Political Discrimination, and Self-Censorship," by Eric Kaufmann (Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, 2021).“A Generation of American Men Give Up on College: ‘I Just Feel Lost',” by Douglas Belkin (The Wall Street Journal, 2021)."Community Colleges and Upward Mobility," by Jack Mountjoy (NBER Working Paper, 2021)."Elite Schools and Opting In: Effects of College Selectivity on Career and Family Outcomes," by Suqin Ge, Elliott Isaac, and Amalia Miller (NBER Working Paper, 2019)."Leaving Boys Behind: Gender Disparities in High Academic Achievement," by Nicole M. Fortin, Philip Oreopoulos, and Shelley Phipps (NBER Working Paper, 2013). EXTRAS:"Freakonomics Radio Goes Back to School," series by Freakonomics Radio (2024).“'If We're All in It for Ourselves, Who Are We?'” by Freakonomics Radio (2024).

Partisanship at major media outlets. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices